Should There Be a "Come and Try It Out" Visa?

[Fandango 1,440]

Why not, Lisa? Would it simply be far too open to fraud or do you think that visas ought to be reserved for people who either are already family or are going to be family very soon?

Again, I don't have a position. I'm just curious.

I think it opens things up to be more fraudulent. I mean let's face it, moving country is a big deal to most of us. But what if you have little ties to where you are? It's not much of a sacrifice then. So where's the risk? It's not 'state your intentions or you can't date my daughter', it's 'eh do whatever ya want'...there's nothing to lose so what would stop people from sponsoring others on the 'off chance'?

I think what needs to happen is more personal responsibility. If you get engaged over the internet without ever having met, if neither of you speak a common language, welll don't come crying to anyone if it doesn't work out. Yes, we've all heard of the whimsical couples that just get hitched in vegas after a few dates, or how our fathers said 'i'm going to marry that girl' after having seen our mothers once, but those are the exceptions rather than the rules.

Furthermore, I think there should be less scrutiny the longer you're together. If you've been a couple longer than a couple of years, I think you should be fast-tracked through the system. If you can show you've spent extensive time together, that it's not a split second decision, and that you really KNOW one another (and you still want to get married, lol) ...then I think the rules should be different.

[pax 1]

Good points.

[faith 0]

Nope don't think there should be one. The marriage and family based petitions are for just that: marriages and families. You can't throw in a "hey you met some hot guy online let's bring him here for a year to see if you want to marry him" visa. I think it would open the door to a lot of fraud and deception and just create a bigger problem.

You want to date someone, do it on your own dime. Make the effort to visit, to call, to get to know eachother in other ways than "trying it out". They don't make "try it out" marriage licenses, then don't make try it out visas.

[Ban Hammer 14,286]

They don't make "try it out" marriage licenses, then don't make try it out visas.

"try it out" marriage licenses

those are a big hit in hollywood ain't they?

[Mand 1]

Furthermore, I think there should be less scrutiny the longer you're together. If you've been a couple longer than a couple of years, I think you should be fast-tracked through the system. If you can show you've spent extensive time together, that it's not a split second decision, and that you really KNOW one another (and you still want to get married, lol) ...then I think the rules should be different.

We lived together in Ireland and knew each other inside out, but we never once thought "We're special, we should be given a quicker and easier route". Every body needs to go through the same process for the visa procedures to have some consistency. Living together and being with each other every day simply meant we had lots of supporting evidence for our Embassy interview...it was still as nerve racking though!

I think if you have one set of rules for one couple, and another for another, it would be an unfair judgemental marker.

[mercuryroad 0]

Well?

In Terri's thread, a few of us mentioned that the K-1 is not a "come and try it out" visa. True enough. The K-1 is, and should be, for persons who do indeed intend to complete a wedding of some sort within 90 days of the non-USC arriving stateside.

So what would you say to a "come and try it out visa"? A "Y" visa, maybe, LOL. (Or a "y not" visa. I'm so punny.) Such a visa would be valid for, say, 12-18 months. You could apply for AP and EAD with it, which would all expire at the expiration of the visa UNLESS a wedding happened and AOS was subsequently applied for. The USC would have to prove ability to support and might also have to agree to be responsible for the non-USC departing the country if things don't work out.

Would it be open to fraud? Well, yes, but let's not get too deeply into that issue. What would everyone think of this? Would you pursue it, or would you have?

In my case this would have been nice. My fiance comes from a country with high fraud and is not able to get a visa to visit here. When I go to bring her back to the U.S. in a couple of weeks, it will be her first experience meeting my family, seeing my home, seeing where I live, meeting my friends, etc. She's flying blind at this point......not to say that she would love me any less, but it is part of getting the complete picture and understanding what your new environment will be like. As it is.....she's heading into the complete unknown.

[almaty 19]

yeap, it happen with sanita..allot of adjustment ahead merc..

[anya-D 8]

Well?

In Terri's thread, a few of us mentioned that the K-1 is not a "come and try it out" visa. True enough. The K-1 is, and should be, for persons who do indeed intend to complete a wedding of some sort within 90 days of the non-USC arriving stateside.

So what would you say to a "come and try it out visa"? A "Y" visa, maybe, LOL. (Or a "y not" visa. I'm so punny.) Such a visa would be valid for, say, 12-18 months. You could apply for AP and EAD with it, which would all expire at the expiration of the visa UNLESS a wedding happened and AOS was subsequently applied for. The USC would have to prove ability to support and might also have to agree to be responsible for the non-USC departing the country if things don't work out.

Would it be open to fraud? Well, yes, but let's not get too deeply into that issue. What would everyone think of this? Would you pursue it, or would you have?

In my case this would have been nice. My fiance comes from a country with high fraud and is not able to get a visa to visit here. When I go to bring her back to the U.S. in a couple of weeks, it will be her first experience meeting my family, seeing my home, seeing where I live, meeting my friends, etc. She's flying blind at this point......not to say that she would love me any less, but it is part of getting the complete picture and understanding what your new environment will be like. As it is.....she's heading into the complete unknown.

I think there should be something similar to the country that doesnt have WP - or at least longer time period than 90 days... In my case it didnt affect me much coz I've been living in the US before - but when i went back home, then it's very difficult to visit (not just the visa but very expensive ticket) so it's also difficult to maintain long distance. .... may be they should make it easier for people to apply for visitor visa.

[Elizabethnhenry 0]

Absobloodylutely not!

[pax 1]

I think it's interesting that the folks who have VWP available to them mostly disagree, while we have at least some agreement from folks who don't. (Arijit, your disagreement is duly noted.)

Let me reiterate that I have NO PERSONAL POSITION. I just thought I'd throw the idea out and see how people unpack it.

[MHandMB 0]

Like most of the other posters, I think that this type of visa would just be asking for fraud and just isn't practical. However, it would have been nice to have been able to have my fiance visit the U.S. prior to our engagement, just so he could really know what he was getting himself into. There are some countries where it is virtually impossible to get a visitor's visa for the States.

We were lucky in that I was able to spend a year with my fiance in Paris, really getting to know him and discovering our compatibility on a day to day level. Also, some of my family members and friends were able to come over and meet him. I can't imagine how much more difficult it would be for someone who hasn't had that opportunity.

With that said, it's not the government's responsibility to see if we're compatible. It would probably reduce the number of divorces somewhat, but it would also open the borders to people who were just looking for a way in and who had no intention of marriage.

However, if this type of visa had existed prior to our engagement, I would have probably used it.

[mercuryroad 0]

Like most of the other posters, I think that this type of visa would just be asking for fraud and just isn't practical. However, it would have been nice to have been able to have my fiance visit the U.S. prior to our engagement, just so he could really know what he was getting himself into. There are some countries where it is virtually impossible to get a visitor's visa for the States.

We were lucky in that I was able to spend a year with my fiance in Paris, really getting to know him and discovering our compatibility on a day to day level. Also, some of my family members and friends were able to come over and meet him. I can't imagine how much more difficult it would be for someone who hasn't had that opportunity.

With that said, it's not the government's responsibility to see if we're compatible. It would probably reduce the number of divorces somewhat, but it would also open the borders to people who were just looking for a way in and who had no intention of marriage.

However, if this type of visa had existed prior to our engagement, I would have probably used it.

My fiance would have used it to.....she is a very intelligent woman that really analyses every decision she makes. This was such a huge decision for her and it is really sad that she did not have the opportunity to have all the information available to her before giving up EVERYTHING!!!! to be here with me. I know she would have taken advantage of that opportunity if it existed so she could make a more informed decision.

That being said......to Lu....te amo. She's got more guts than anyone I know and I give her credit for making that leap.

The people that had the opportunity to come to the U.S. and spend time with their SO are truly fortunate.

[ChristinaM 0]

Perhaps it would be better for the K1 to be changed so that one had to have been in the country for 60 days before getting married, leaving a 30 day window at the end of the visa either for sealing what you already knew, or to test it out until day 89, or to realise that it isn't working.

A K1 can be work-authorised, and if this were implemented with some change to the POE system whereby all POEs offered the stamp ala JFK it might be more reasonable. And maybe if the stamp were renewable if one got married. But that's a different issue.

[anya-D 8]

Like most of the other posters, I think that this type of visa would just be asking for fraud and just isn't practical. However, it would have been nice to have been able to have my fiance visit the U.S. prior to our engagement, just so he could really know what he was getting himself into. There are some countries where it is virtually impossible to get a visitor's visa for the States.

We were lucky in that I was able to spend a year with my fiance in Paris, really getting to know him and discovering our compatibility on a day to day level. Also, some of my family members and friends were able to come over and meet him. I can't imagine how much more difficult it would be for someone who hasn't had that opportunity.

With that said, it's not the government's responsibility to see if we're compatible. It would probably reduce the number of divorces somewhat, but it would also open the borders to people who were just looking for a way in and who had no intention of marriage.

However, if this type of visa had existed prior to our engagement, I would have probably used it.

I see that I and other whos intention are true would benefit from it - but it is also make it easier for people to commit fraud

[pax 1]

I see that I and other whos intention are true would benefit from it - but it is also make it easier for people to commit fraud

And therein, of course, lies the rub.

But could the argument be made that those who are intent on committing visa fraud will do it, no matter what form of visa they have to abuse to do it?